Content

3. Content

For this section you need to be able to:

(a) Describe and evaluate two explanations of criminal/antisocial behaviour from different approaches. One explanation must be that of social learning theory (the Learning Approach) including the possible role of the media in modelling antisocial behaviour, and one other explanations from either:

i one example of how the influence of personality (e.g. Eysenck) explains criminal behaviour (the Biological Approach)

ii labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy (the Social Approach)

(b) Describe and evaluate three studies into eyewitness testimony including one laboratory experiment (e.g. one of Loftus’s laboratory experiments) and one field study in detail (e.g. Yuille & Cutshall (1986) A Case Study of eyewitness memory) and one other.

Suitable examples:

Punishment
Anger management
Social skills training

Note: In the exam, students may be given stimulus material about the application and asked to describe and evaluate, drawing on knowledge of the application and the five psychological approaches in AS.

(a) Describe and evaluate two explanations of criminal/antisocial behaviour from different approaches. (Social Learning Theory and Labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy).

1. Social learning theory (the Learning Approach) including the possible role of the media in modelling antisocial behaviour.

One explanation for criminal/antisocial behaviour is observational learning. An individual will learn criminal behaviour by observing role models and imitating their behaviour. Role models who tend to be imitated will often be the same gender, similar age or have high status. Criminal behaviour will be observed in role models who are engaging in criminal activity. These role models may be family members, friends and peers but can also be role models in the media.

According to Bandura, modelling will occur when the observer pays attention, retains the information and reproduces what they have observed and when they are motivated to do so. This motivation is affected by vicarious learning, external motivation and self-reinforcement.

If a behaviour is punished it is less likely to be repeated and, if rewarded, more likely to be repeated. Vicarious learning is not direct reward or punishment but is how an individual learns by watching others being rewarded or punished. Observing a successful criminal who is getting away with it will provide an individual with more motivation to imitate their behaviour.

External motivation will arise once a criminal act has been observed and imitated by an individual. If the act is rewarded (was successful) it is likely to be repeated. The individual likes the reward and will want to experience it again.

Self-reinforcement refers to self-motivational factors associated with a crime. Behaviour is more motivating if some internal need is satisfied such as excitement.

Bandura (1961) showed that children imitated an adult model that was aggressive. Boys imitated physical aggression more than girls who showed more verbal aggression. The findings of this research illustrate the potential risk for children exposed to antisocial models in their everyday lives such as those displaying aggressive behaviours. This would include models in the media.

The role of the media in modelling antisocial behaviour.

Opportunities to witness criminal/antisocial behaviour in everyday life may be limited, however opportunities to witness violence and crime in the media is less restricted. According to social learning theory, children who are exposed to violence and antisocial behaviour in television programmes, DVDs and computer games may be more likely to use violence themselves or show aggression towards others. The focus is upon the types of role models in the media who are modelling antisocial behaviour.

Behaviour acquired by social learning involves four processes: attention, retention, reproduction and reinforcement. Watching TV involves paying attention to the storyline, if there is violence in the storyline which is distinctive this is likely to be retained. Viewers may be impressed by the violence used, motivating them to reproduce it later. This is particularly true if the model on TV is rewarded for their actions (vicarious reinforcement for the viewer). Furthermore, characters on TV tend to be powerful role models since they have high social status and may be viewed as clever, attractive and strong. Young viewers may identify with these characters making imitation even more likely.

For example: A person may observe a criminal act such as burglary and by observing this behaviour they are paying attention to it. There may be obvious rewards such as the material rewards that are associated with burglary which would motivate a person to copy the behaviour they may have observed. There is an element of choice in this, which adds a cognitive component to the explanation.

Evaluation of Social Learning Theory as an explanation for criminal/antisocial behaviour.

Strengths

There is a vast quantity of experimental evidence to show that behaviour is imitated, including aggressive behaviour. For example, Bandura Ross and Ross 1961 showed that children will imitate aggression when they see it modelled by an adult, especially when the model is the same sex as them. Further research by Bandura (1965) showed the importance of vicarious reinforcement. Children shown a film of a model acting aggressively to a Bobo doll saw one of 3 endings; model rewarded; model ignored or model punished. The least amount of spontaneous aggression was shown when children saw the model punished. Lab based research like this is likely to be high in reliability but low in ecological validity. Due to the controls in this study a cause and effect relationship can be established.

The theory has a practical application and may be used to rehabilitate offenders by using suitable role models to help them learn appropriate behaviour in conjunction with reinforcement. Volunteers will enter prisons and will act as a role model for offenders, be a positive influence on them, assist them in gaining confidence and achieving their goals.
Some individuals may have a predisposition to anti-social/criminal behaviour and are maybe more likely to seek out media violence. This would explain why not all individuals who observe media violence will imitate what they see; it is only those who already have such violent tendencies as a result of their disposition. Such individuals may be more likely to be affected by the media and to imitate violent acts without questioning whether it is morally acceptable to display such behaviour.

Weaknesses

The theory is reductionist focusing only on how an individual is influenced by social factors and does not consider biological explanations of why an individual might turn to crime. The theory fails to take into account individual differences in important factors such as moral development and whether the individual has a natural predisposition to anti-social behaviour due to their personality. Social learning theory seems to start with the assumption that all individuals learn aggression if they are exposed to media violence and ignores the existence of individual differences.
There is some refuting evidence to suggest that social learning theory cannot explain criminal/antisocial behaviour. For example, quasi experiments like Charlton (2000) found no effect of the introduction of TV on the amount of aggression shown by young children even when the children were exposed to media violence. However, although quasi experiments allow us to ethically investigate a phenomenon such as increased exposure to TV, there is a lack of control. For example, the representativeness of the sample of participants is decided by natural occurrence rather than experimenter control. Furthermore, for some research it is difficult to establish a link between observational learning and criminal behaviour because there is a lack of control over the experience of viewing anti-social behaviour and the time lapse possible before the behaviour is displayed.
The theory does not explain all types of crime, for example it does not account for criminal behaviour that is opportunistic and has not been observed first – it tends to account more for stealing, aggression and other crimes that are easily observed in society rather than murder for example.

2. Labelling and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (the Social Approach).

Labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy go together as an explanation of crime and antisocial behaviour, the person is first labelled and then becomes the label.

When applied to crime, labelling means referring to someone as ‘a criminal’ for example and usually starts when someone stereotypes someone else and the label comes from the stereotype. Stereotyping is the tendency to apply commonly believed, oversimplified views to all members of a group. For example, expecting anti-social behaviour from someone wearing a hoody. From this the observer will label the observed – for example, labelling a hoody as trouble. The label may create a false first impression of the observed, and the observer may ignore any pro-social behaviour and focus on anti-social behaviour. Eventually the observed may then act in the way expected of the label which reinforces the label therefore a self-fulfilling prophecy has occurred.

Self-fulfilling prophecy may therefore be described as a prediction, that may be false or only a possibility that is made true as a result of an individual’s actions.

Youths who are labeled as criminals or delinquents may hold these as self-fulfilling prophecies – believing the labels that others assign to them, thereby acting as the labels. A youth who succumbs to a label may then proceed to act as a criminal or act as delinquent, abandoning social norms because he or she believes that he or she is a bad person and that this is what bad people are supposed to do.

The 4 stages of a self-fulfilling prophecy (SFP)

Labelling
Treating the person according to the label
The person reacts by acting according to the label
The person’s behaviour fulfils the expectations which confirm the label. A self-fulfilling prophecy has occurred.

An Example of self-fulfilling prophecy and crime.

Jahoda (1954) studied theAshantitribe ofWest Africawhere boys and girls are named after the day of the week they are born. The Ashanti’s believe that the day of the week a child is born brings personal qualities or characteristics that will be seen throughout their life. AnAshantiboy born on a Monday will be called Kwadwo and is considered to be mild mannered whereas a boy born on a Wednesday will be called Kwaku and is considered to be aggressive and short-tempered. Jahoda studied police arrest records and found that males born on Wednesday had a significantly higher arrest rate (22%) than males born on a Monday (6.9%). This finding can be interpreted using self-fulfilling prophecy as children bearing the name Kwaku were expected to be violent and were treated with greater suspicion than the mild mannered Kwadwo thus demonstrating the SFP.

Evaluation of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy as an explanation for criminal/antisocial behaviour.

Strengths

Empirical evidence – one strength of labelling and SFP as an explanation for criminal/antisocial behaviour is that it is supported by evidence from research. Jahoda’s research shows how labelling children according to the day of the week they were born on seemed to show that the children who were born on Wednesday and labelled as aggressive acted up to their label committing more crimes (as shown in court records) and therefore a SFP had occurred.

Practical application is that labelling and SFP can explain recidivism among former criminals. If the criminal returns to the community where they live, then other members of the community may only see them in terms of their criminality – they are labelled as criminal. A SFP may occur, and further crimes are committed. This is supported by evidence from Ageton & Elliott (1974) who suggested that treatment of youth offenders by the police and courts could lead to further deviance. This may be explained by the boys being exposed to the negative responses of their families, the police or in court. Such responses from others would have led the boys to exhibit more behaviour in line with their ‘criminal’ label.

Weaknesses

Individual differences – one weakness of labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy as an explanation for criminal behaviour is that as a theory it does not account for individual differences in behaviour for example, not everyone acts according to the label they are given. For example, a hoody who is labelled as aggressive may deliberately act non-aggressively to disprove the label. It is suggested that individuals with a low self-concept are more likely to be affected by a negative expectation of them and therefore are more likely to accept their label and in turn behave in that way resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Incomplete explanation for criminal behaviour – a further weakness is that not everyone acting aggressively or anti-socially has been labelled beforehand. For example, someone who attacks another person may not have been labelled as aggressive before they attacked the other person. This is something that labelling and self-fulfilling prophecy can’t explain and therefore it cannot be a complete explanation of crime. The explanation ignores other stronger influences on behaviour such as education, economic and cultural factors.

You must be able to compare and contrast the two explanations for criminal behaviour (social learning theory and labelling/SFP.

(a) Describe and evaluate three studies into eyewitness testimony including one laboratory experiment (e.g. one of Loftus’s laboratory experiments) and one field study in detail (e.g. Yuille & Cutshall (1986) A Case Study of eyewitness memory) and one other.

Study In Detail 1 = Loftus & Palmer (1974) A Laboratory Experiment.

Loftus & Palmer’s research consisted of two separate experiments – experiment one and experiment two.

Experiment one

The AIM of this study was to see if the phrasing of a question would affect estimates of speed, applying these findings to the idea of leading questions in court. A leading question is one that suggests to the witness what answer is desired or leads him or her to the desired answer.

The PROCEDURE involved 45 students being put into 5 different groups. Seven films were shown, each involving a traffic accident, with each film lasting between 5 and 30 seconds. After every film the participants had a questionnaire to fill in. First they were required to give an account of the accident, and then had to answer specific questions. The critical question was the one asking about the speed of the vehicles. The first group of nine participants were asked ‘about how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’ and the other groups were asked the same critical question but with the word smashed replaced by collided, bumped, hit or contacted. The same procedure was followed for each film. This study is an example of a laboratory experiment because the procedure is controlled for all participants and the IV (which is the verb in the critical question) is deliberately manipulated whilst trying to keep all other variables constant. The effect of the IV is then measured on the DV which in this case is the estimate of speed in mph given by participants.

The RESULTSshowed that the verb ‘smashed’ produced the highest mean estimate of speed and that the verb ‘contacted’ produced the lowest mean estimate.

Table to show estimated speeds according to which verb was used in the question.

Verb used	Mean speed estimated (mph)
Smashed	40.8
Collided	39.3
Bumped	38.1
Hit	34.0
Contacted	31.8

Collided, bumped and hit had speed estimates that were fairly well spaced and decreased according to the perceived severity of the verb.

The CONCLUSION was that the wording of a question can affect a witness’s answer. Loftus and Palmer gave two interpretations/explanations for the findings of their 1st experiment.

1. Firstly, they argued that the results could be due to a distortion in the memory of the participant. The memory of how fast the cars were travelling could have been distorted by the verbal label which had been used to characterise the intensity of the crash.

2. Secondly, they argue that the results could be due to response-bias factors, in which case the participant is not sure of the exact speed and therefore adjusts his or her estimate to fit in with the expectations of the questioner. (This is also an example of a demand characteristic)

Evaluation of Loftus & Palmer’s Study.

Strengths

Reliability – this study was well controlled meaning that the study is replicable which increases the reliability of the findings. For example, all participants watched the same film and were asked identical questions except for one word change (the IV).
Objective data – by using estimates of speed, the researchers gathered quantitative data and therefore no interpretation of the data was needed making their study more objective. It also allows the researchers to carry out statistical analysis of the data to determine if the results are significant and furthermore, comparisons can be made by drawing up charts and graphs of the results.
Less demand characteristics – the aim of the study was disguised by ‘hiding’ the leading question amongst others. This meant the participants would be less likely to guess the aim of the study therefore helping to reduce demand characteristics (behaving in a way that attempts to meet the demands of the situation).

Weaknesses

Ecological validity – this study is low in ecological validity because the experiment used a situation which was not like real life. The participants would not experience the same emotional strain whilst watching a film clip as they would if they had been witness to a real car accident. Therefore the results may not be generalisable to real life eye witness accounts. However, although the task lacked mundane realism in many ways; by having week long gap between seeing the ‘incident’ and recalling it made the situation more realistic, as witnesses are unlikely to record what they have seen immediately.
Sample – using students as participants it might be said that the findings are not generalizable to the whole population. Students’ memories may be different to other age groups and people with different occupations. Furthermore, the sample tested was relatively small so again may not be representative of all eye witnesses.
Validity – the validity of the situation the participants were put into is questionable. The experimenters claimed to be measuring the effect of leading questions on witness recall however the task used to test this was memory of a film clip. Eyewitnesses to actual crimes do not see them on a video but as an on-going part of day-to-day events. Participants in the experiment may pay more attention than a witness would and have fewer distractions. Also, participants in the experiment are likely to be less motivated and aroused than eyewitnesses seeing a real car accident and their reactions may not be representative, especially as emotional state is known to affect recall.

Experiment two

The AIM of this experiment was again to determine whether leading questions would influence the response of an eyewitness.

A similar PROCEDURE to the first experiment was used whereby 150 student participants viewed a short (one minute) film which contained a 4 second scene of a multiple car accident, and were then questioned about it. There were three conditions and the independent variable was manipulated by the wording of the question.

50 of the participants were asked ‘how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’

50 of the participants were asked ‘How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’

50 of the participants were not interrogated about the speed of the vehicles.

One week later, the participants returned and, without viewing the film again, they answered a series of questions about the accident. The critical question was ‘Did you see any broken glass?’ The critical question was part of a longer series of questions and was placed in a random position on each participants question paper. There was in fact no broken glass in the film.

The RESULTS collected in response to the question ‘Did you see any broken glass?’ are noted in the table below:

Response	Smashed	Hit	Control
Yes	16	7	6
No	34	43	44

These results show a significant effect of the verb in the question on the mis-perception of glass in the film. Those participants that heard the word smashed were more than twice as likely to recall seeing broken glass.

The CONCLUSION outlined tries to account for the results of the second experiment. Loftus and Palmer developed the following explanation called the reconstructive hypothesis:

They argue that two kinds of information go into a person’s memory of an event. The first is the information obtained from perceiving an event (e.g. witnessing a video of a car accident), and the second is the other information supplied to us after the event (e.g. the question containing hit or smashed). Over time, the information from these two sources may be integrated in such a way that we are unable to tell from which source some specific detail is recalled. All we have is one ‘memory’.

For example in Loftus and Palmer’s 2nd experiment, the participants first form some memory of the video they have witnessed. The experimenter then, while asking, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” supplies a piece of external information, namely, that the cars did indeed smash into each other. When these two pieces of information are integrated, the participant has a memory of an accident that was more severe than in fact it was. Since broken glass corresponds to a severe accident, the participant is more likely to think that broken glass was present.

The EVALUATION of this second experiment would be similar to experiment one.

Study In Detail 2 = Yuille & Cutshall (1986) A Field Study/Case Study.

A gun shop in Canada was robbed in broad daylight. As the thief was escaping, the shop owner followed him on to the street. Both had guns. The thief fired twice and the shop owner fired 6 times, the thief was killed.

There were many witnesses to the event and all had a clear view so the police were able to get a detailed account because the witnesses could corroborate each other’s accounts which could then be linked to forensic evidence about the event.

The AIM of the study was to look at the problems of laboratory research in studying eyewitness testimony, to look at the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and to compare eyewitness accounts taken straight after an incident with those taken four to five months after. Another aim was to see how eyewitness memory could be affected by leading questions.

The PROCEDURE involved asking 21 witnesses to a gun shooting which had taken place four to five months before to take part in research. 13 agreed to take part in the research. Directly after the gun shooting, all 21 witnesses were interviewed by police. Four to five months after the initial interviews, the 13 participants were interviewed by researchers. The interviews followed the same style as the police interviews: the participants were asked to describe the event and were then asked questions about it. Two leading questions were added to the interviews, one asking about the thief’s car headlight (“did you see the broken headlight?”) and another asking about the car quarter panel (“did you see the yellow quarter panel?”). The headlight was not broken, and the quarter panel was blue. Half of the participants were asked these leading questions, and the other half were asked non-leading variants (“did you see a broken headlight” and “did you see a yellow quarter panel?”). The participants were asked about their emotional state and stress levels before and after the incident, and were also asked whether they had any problems afterwards. These results were recorded on a 7 point scale – 1 being perfectly calm and 7 being extremely anxious.

The scoring procedure was very precise, so the police and research interviews could be compared. The content of the witnesses’ reports were scored for the number of accurate action, person and object descriptions.

Action descriptions related to things such as movements or gunshots. Person descriptions related to things such as age, height, hair colour and clothing. Object descriptions related to items in the crime such as money or the gun.

Table showing the accuracy of person descriptions.

Detail	Police interview	Research interview
Hair colour	77	80
Clothing colour	66	59
Weight, height, age	50	51
Details excluding weight, height, age	82	80

The RESULTS showed that the researchers recorded more total details than the police: the police recorded 649 total details and the researchers recorded 1056 total details. The researchers recorded half action, half descriptive details, whereas the police recorded more action details than descriptive details. This was largely due to the fact that the researchers asked more about descriptive details than the police.

The witnesses were split into peripheral and central witnesses, and this accounted for the variation in what was reported. 7 of the witnesses were central, and 6 were peripheral. Both of these groups were equally accurate in their accounts, with 84% of central witnesses were accurate, and 79% of peripheral witnesses were accurate. Leading questions did not affect the witness’s memories of the incident.

The CONCLUSION was that eyewitness statement is remarkably accurate – more accurate than lab experiments would suggest. Central witnesses were more accurate in their accounts, although both groups were fairly equal. This is something else a lab experiment cannot capture.

Evaluation of Yuille & Cutshall’s Study

Strengths

Ecological validity – this study possesses a very high level of ecological validity. This is because it followed a field study design, and assessed the testimony of real witnesses to a real crime, instead of assessing participants in an artificial situation.
Reliability – the findings are reliable. This is because of the precise scoring procedure. If this procedure were to be repeated, then the study is likely to produce the same results. Also, the data produced were quantitative, and so researcher bias is limited and is unlikely to affect the findings.
Challenge to laboratory findings – the accuracy of Yuille & Cutshall’s witnesses and the lack of effect that the leading questions had upon recall supports the criticism that laboratory studies lack ecological validity since the findings of such studies appear not to generalise to witnesses of real crimes.

Weaknesses

Sample – it may not be generalisable, and it would be unfair to criticise lab experiments with the evidence from this study. This is because the study assessed real witnesses from a very small sample of people. The researchers themselves said they were investigating flashbulb memory, which is completely different from what is studied in the lab.
Subjectivity – the scoring system was sometimes inaccurate. This means that the results may be inaccurate. For example, the statement “He looks as if he was in his early twenties” was recorded as incorrect as the thief was actually 35 – regardless of whether the thief did look in his twenties. The type of scoring used converted qualitative data into quantitative data, and so a degree of subjectivity may also be present.
Validity of the task – although the researchers aimed to measure eyewitness memory, they acknowledge that they may in fact have been testing flashbulb memory instead. Flashbulb memory is particularly vivid and accurate memories associated with key emotional events.

Study In Detail 3 = Yarmey (2004) A Field Experiment.

The AIM of the study was to look at a number of effects on eyewitness testimony, such as being prepared to be a witness; the target wearing a disguise; a four hour time gap between an incident and interview; gender; cognitive interviewing and whether the target was present in a photo line-up.

The PROCEDURE involved studying 215 male participants and 375 female participants aged between 18 and 70. All participants were white to avoid race bias. They were randomly assigned into one of many different conditions listed below:
1. Whether the target was wearing a disguise (sunglasses and baseball cap) or not.
2. Whether the witness (participant) was male or female.
3. Whether the participant was interviewed straight after being approached or four hours later.
4. Whether the participant was prepared (told they were going to be an eyewitness) or not.
5. Whether cognitive interview techniques were used or not.
6. Whether the photo of the target was present in the photo line-up or not.

The participants were approached in public by a young woman (target) who asked them either to help look for lost jewellery or for directions. After this, the participants were approached by a female researcher who asked them if they would take part in a study. If they agreed, the researcher either asked then and there about the target or 4 hours later. Witnesses were given a questionnaire with 16 items, eight about the physical characteristics of the target and eight about her clothing. They rated their confidence about their answers on a 7-point scale. Participants were then asked to identify her in a photo line-up consisting of 6 photos. In one set of photos, the target’s photo was absent. In another set it was present. Participants were told that the target may not be in the photos and were only shown each photo once. After the study the participants were debriefed.

Another aspect to the study involved asking students to predict the participant’s actions, in order to ascertain how a jury would think an eyewitness would react.

The RESULTS found that 49% of participants correctly identified the target when present in the photographs. 62% of participants realised that the target’s photo was not present. This is in contrast to the students’ predictions: the students predicted that 47% of participants would recognise the absence of the target’s photograph and 63% of the students predicted that the participants would identify the target’s photograph when it was present. (This was a significant overestimate).

The participants who were prepared for being a witness were better at recall overall, but were no better at photo identification. Age estimates were more accurate than height and weight estimates. Cognitive interview techniques were not found to be beneficial for recall.

It was concluded that eyewitnesses were likely to identify a target correctly 50% of the time, and so eyewitness testimony is equally likely to be inaccurate. The inaccuracy of the students’ predictions led the researchers to believe that juror’s judgements may also be inaccurate. This study overall casts doubt on whether jurors should accept eyewitness statements simply because they were present at a crime.

Evaluation of Yarmey’s Study.

Strengths

Ecological validity – it follows field study methodology, and as a result it is valid. The participants were approached in public – their usual settings – and this means that they are not likely to display demand characteristics, as they would in a lab experiment. So, if the participants are displaying their natural behaviour, then it is likely they would behave the same in a real life situation. Therefore, the results can be applied to real life situations.
Sample – the study used a very large sample of participants. A large range of ages was used, and both men and women were present. This makes the findings likely to be generalisable to the wider population as a whole.
Practical application – the results of Yarmey’s research would be usefully applied in a courtroom setting to advise members of the jury that eyewitness accounts of perpetrators are not always accurate and less emphasis should be placed on them.

Weaknesses

Reliability – while there was control over the conditions, the study may not be reliable. This is because it took place in public, where there are likely to be many extraneous variables such as other people present and noise which could affect the participant’s behaviour. This decreases the reliability of the study, as it would be impossible to replicate each of the encountered variables.
Validity of the task – the participants were approached by a target who asked for directions or to look for jewellery. This is clearly different from being approached by a criminal who may be behaving aggressively, and as a result the findings can only be generalised to similar, non-criminal, situations.
Validity of the task – furthermore, the photo line-up is not the same as a real life line-up. A photo of a face is not the same as the actual person being there. There would have been more focus on the facial characteristics such as hair and eyes rather than build, stance and other forms of body language which would also have been present. This means again that the task lacked validity.

(a) Describe and evaluate two ways of treating offenders including the token economy programme and one other.

Suitable examples:

Punishment
Anger management
Social skills training

Token Economy

Token economy programmes are a form of behaviour modification based on the principles of operant conditioning; specifically reinforcement. Such programmes are used in prisons to encourage pro-social behaviour and involve awarding tokens to offenders if a desired behaviour is performed. The tokens may then be exchanged for various rewards. The aim is for the desired behaviour to be repeated.

As a treatment for offenders it would involve setting out a range of desirable or target behaviours the institution want the offender to display and reinforcing the offender whenever the behaviour is displayed. Target behaviours would focus upon non-aggressive behaviours such as helping, being polite and following the prison rules. The expectation is that the target behaviour will become learned and automatic.

Positive reinforcers come in the shape of tokens—a secondary reinforcer, which can be exchanged for something of positive material value to the offender such as soft drinks, sweets, cigarettes or privileges (primary reinforcers). The offender would have to collect enough tokens in order to get the thing that they want. Negative reinforcement comes with the threat of removal of tokens and prisoners change their behaviour to avoid this consequence. A token economy system uses the process of shaping which involves gradually altering behaviour through selective reinforcement of behaviour that approximates the desired outcome.

This works because the behaviour of the offender is being constantly monitored and recorded in order to award the tokens. It therefore is limited to institutions like a prison or young offenders’ institute.

Evaluation of token economy as a method of treating offenders.

Strengths

Immediate reinforcement – the behaviours are rewarded instantly, unlike other treatments which reinforce behaviours long after they occur. This means that the prisoner knows exactly which behaviour is being positively reinforced, and thus the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated is increased. For example, a prisoner who displays non-aggressive behaviour is rewarded for this behaviour immediately, and they therefore understand that the non-aggressive behaviour is the desired behaviour.
Less individual differences – as all prisoners have to take part in the programme, no single prisoner can have an ulterior motive for participating. This is in contrast to other programmes such as anger management, where prisoners may take part in the programme for longer parole.
Supporting evidence – Hobbs and Holt (1976) measured the effect of introducing a token economy on a sample of young delinquents across 3 institutions (with one further institution being used as a control for comparison). Target behaviours included doing chores, cooperation and obeying rules. Tokens were awarded to those in the experimental groups whenever target behaviour was displayed. These were swapped for positive primary reinforcers such as soft drinks, sweets, leisure activities, cigarettes and passes home. There was a significant (28%) increase in the target behaviours in the experimental groups compared to the controls. This shows that the token economy was an effective and cost effective (less than $8 per month per boy) way to control the behaviour of criminals whilst in prison.

Weaknesses

Recidivism- may occur when the prisoners leave the programme. This is because they may come to rely on the primary and secondary reinforcers, and they are not available to them outside of the token economy programme. As a result of this, the offenders may re-offend in order to gain the rewards that they would have obtained when in the token economy programme.

Lack of control – a ‘black market’ may occur within the system, where prisoners can buy and sell their tokens for rewards which they would have obtained for non-aggressive behaviour. This means that they are being positively reinforced for engaging in the black market, instead of behaving non-aggressively. Furthermore, there may be a lack of consistency from prison staff in the way that they run the system of awarding the tokens.
Refuting evidence – Ross & McKay (1976) studied the use of a token economy programme with delinquent girls. This was ineffective at reducing their behavioural problems when directed at either reducing antisocial behaviour or increasing social acts.

Anger Management

Anger management is another treatment aimed to prevent crime. It can be used in prisons, and participants may take part voluntarily or as part of their sentence. The aim is to identify triggers which may cause aggressive outbursts. By preventing aggression, the likelihood of crimes being committed is lessened.

The treatment usually takes place in group settings and occurs about twice a week. A trained practitioner runs the group, and usually acts as a facilitator. The offenders usually begin by talking about their day, describing their feelings or discussing their progress. Conversations usually turn to what factors make them feel angry and thus trigger aggressive outbursts. Once this trigger has been identified, strategies can be taught which lessen the anger which a person experiences. Typically, the trigger is turned around so it’s viewed in a positive light. After the offender is seen as making progress, the length of time between sessions is gradually increased, so the support of the group is reduced over time.

An anger management programme will be based around 3 key stages; cognitive preparation, skills acquisition and application practice.

Cognitive Preparation

This involves analysing past aggression and discovering patterns. For example the trainer will look for recurring triggers or environmental situations that regularly precede a loss of temper in the offender.

The offender must also examine the consequences of this aggression both in the long and short term and then must recognise that they need to change this behaviour.

2. Skills Acquisition

Offenders are taught techniques that help them to manage their behavioural response to triggers in a more productive way.

· Cognitive skills—aimed at changing thoughts and perceptions of the situation in order to damp down the emotional response. E.g. thought stopping techniques like counting to 10 or self-instructional techniques like ‘be calm, be calm’. They should also learn to reappraise the situation so as it does not feel threatening.

· Behavioural skills—aimed at reducing the physiological fight or flight response and giving options for dealing with the situation E.g. relaxation training to try and damp down the release of hormones and assertiveness training to help the client maintain their view without resorting to violence.

3. Application Practice

This allows the offender to test their skills in a range of situations. Often the programmes are run as group therapy and therefore the other group members can role play situations that reflect the triggers of a particular member and allow them to practice dealing with it in a non-aggressive way.

This is then reinforced by the group and the good behaviour will serve as a model for others in the group.

One specific anger management programme used by the prison service in England and Wales is The National Anger Management Package. The programme is based on eight 2-hour sessions, seven of which are given over two to three weeks and the final session a month later. The aims of the course are to raise offender’s awareness of how they become angry and to educate them in how to control their anger.

Evaluation of anger management as a method of treating offenders.

Strengths

Effectiveness – offenders can take part voluntarily. This increases the programme’s effectiveness, as offenders who take part voluntarily are usually more committed to the programme’s success. This is in contrast to other treatments, such as token economy, which are often enforced over an entire prison system meaning that it may not be successful in all cases.

Low recidivism – the chances of recidivism occurring after the treatment are relatively low. This is because the techniques which are taught can be used outside of the prison system, and that the treatment is gradually reduced over time. Again this is in contrast to other treatments (token economy, for example) which are not effective outside of a prison system and which end suddenly.
Experimental evidence – Ireland (2000) compared 50 young offenders on an AM programme with 37 on the waiting list for AM. Pre and post treatment scores were taken on level of aggression shown (as reported by prison officers and by the prisoners themselves through self-report). 92% of the treatment group showed some drop in aggression with 48% showing major decreases. 8% showed deterioration. This evidence shows strong support of AM programmes as a way to control aggression in prison.

Weaknesses

Social control – some people have to take part as part of their sentence. This provides an ulterior motive and although the offender may appear to have made progress, this could be false and the issue of anger is not actually being addressed. This means that anger management may not be effective for everyone.
Reductionist – often, only triggers to physical aggression are addressed. This means that other forms of aggression, such as verbal aggression and emotional abuse are not addressed. Therefore, anger management programmes are not able to solve all aggressive acts. Furthermore, anger management only focuses upon cognitive and behavioural aspects of anger and ignores the possible role that physical factors such as an excessive amount of testosterone may have upon the individual.

Refuting evidence - Loza and Loza-Fanous (1999) studied Canadian offenders classified as violent or non-violent and measured them for anger. They found no difference between the groups concluding that anger is not necessary for aggression to occur therefore treatments aimed at changing anger will have minimal impact on violent behaviour. They also stated that by giving credence to the belief that anger and violence are linked could be harmful as it allows the violent offender to blame his/her nature for their behaviour rather than take responsibility for their actions.

Content

Pages

Meta

More